ID 217146 Nguyen Thi Phuong

Case 15-1: The union demand for recognition and bargaining rights 1. Evaluate the various claims made by the union and counterclaims made by the

company regarding the charges of unfair labor practices. Which of the arguments are most persuasive? The union accused the company has repeatedly interrogated employees about their union activities. The company repeatedly interrogated the employees concerning their union activities; this is evidenced in the case when the companys maintenance supervisor t alked to some o the employees asking them about the unions visit. He telephoned George Thompson, talked to Alice Coleman, he interrogated Theo Ewing and also Gloria Greer. - He called for George Thompson and then followed home. Indirect threats were made to Thompson stripping benefits associated with the words: you have a good job, you have a flat ... This is your last chance. - Theodore Ewing Employees were required to keep your ears and eyes open and let your manager know if he heard anything about unions, and Thompson was repeatedly asked if he knew anything, even after he refused to disclose the information. - The supervisor also threatened Mr. Theo Ewing that he had everything because he had given him and that he had the last chance to tell him what was happening with the union. Allegations that the threat made to an employee for refusing to disclose the identity of employees attended a union meeting, especially those relating to the deprivation of benefits if the union was elected, repeatedly interrogating employees about their union activities, and threatening an employee for refusing to name the employees who attended a union meeting.

ID 217146 Nguyen Thi Phuong

The threatening of employees is also evidenced when the new supervisor Leo Nord told Cecil Snow on the day the elections that if the union won then the employer would take away the free rent apartments from the janitors help and charge the head janitor for the second bedroom in their apartments. (Ivancevich, 2010). My opinion is this was a statement by the supervisor but did seem intended to coerce the voting. The last argument that I find most persuasive for the favor of the Union is the unique timing of new health benefits of the company, which seems to be a direct persuasion to the employees to not vote for the Union. 2. Was the statement by Nord to Snow on the date of the representational election a

threat or a legitimate prediction and personal opinion protected by the free speech provisions of the act? When Nord talked to Cecil Snow on the day of the election he was threatening the employees since he specifically told her that if the union were to win the elections then the employer would take the rent free apartments away from the janitors help and charge the head janitors for the second bedroom in their apartments. (Ivancevich, 2010).This statement clearly is a threat that if the employees voted for the union then the employers they will start charging them rent for their houses. He did not say might or My guess is that or any other similar remark that indicated that the statement was an opinion rather than a fact. 3. Was the company obligated to accept the unions majority status claim on the basis of

the authorization cards submitted by the union? The company was obligated to accept the authorization cards form the union since this authorization cards came on the day the union had the meeting with the employees. To add to the matter the authorization cards were signed by the employees so there is no way that the union could have gotten the employees to sign without their approval. The signing by the employee signified their acceptance to deal with the union. This was like a contract between

ID 217146 Nguyen Thi Phuong

the two parties that they had accepted to have a relationship together. Furthermore the company had no evidence that the employees had been coerced into signing the authorization by the union so it is ok to state that they signed the authorization on their own free will and hence had entered a contract that was binding between them and the union. However, if the union can prove that the company engaged in serious unfair labor practices during the union organizing campaign, the NLRB can force the company to recognize the union, regardless of the voting results. 4. If the company is found to have violated the act, what would be the appropriate

remedy; a bargaining order or a new election? I believe if the company was found to have violated the act, the additional benefits had not been offered, the most appropriate remedy would be a bargaining order. If the company will not use its influence again to coerce the employees not to sign with the union by threatening them or offering them rewards so that they wont sign with the union to be represented with them. But because the additional benefits, along with the firing of the previous manager, may have swayed the opinions of the employees, the most appropriate remedy would seem to be holding a new election.

ID 217146 Nguyen Thi Phuong

REFERENCES: Ivancevich, J. M. (2010). Human resource management (11th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. National Labor Relations Act (Aug 6, 2013). Retrieved from http://www.nlrb.gov/national-laborrelations-act